If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Moderately Confused wrote: "kony" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:14:23 -0400, "Moderately Confused" wrote: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1 Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a 32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64 bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing. Reread the linked article, 64 bit is irrelevant as it wasn't doing anything 64 bit. It is true that eventually Intel will also have higher performance CPUs, but then so will AMD... world keeps spinning... Still, the 64 bit processor will out perform the 32 bit one, although it will be a minor performance increase. My problem isn't with AMD, it's the "proof" of JK's claims. Sure, AMD 64 might be better in Business Winstone, but it's only one piece of software. Business Winstone is not one piece of software. It is composed of several applications. http://www.veritest.com/benchmarks/b...e/s1wsapps.asp Whoop-de-doo, it out performs Intel in Doom3, which I heard sucks anyway. Many other games as well. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2065&p=10 Take a look at this. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2065&p=12 Keep in mind that these 32 bit applications will probably run faster using a 64 bit OS, and that 64 bit versions of software will probably run much faster than that. All of his "arguments" are based on two links. The is also Advanced Virus Protection (AVP) when an Athlon 64 chip is used With Windows XP with Service Pack 2(SP2) installed. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/a...sp2/35675.html Another review. http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000304 More links. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...on64-3800.html MC |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit.
For what? -Dave |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... JK wrote: kony wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:18:12 -0400, JK wrote: Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system. Nonsense There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too. If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument against someone else driving a car. It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit. Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't like breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke, turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of thing. No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine BELOW redline. You are doing something with the car that it was not designed to do. And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is, exactly. -Dave |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:40:11 -0400, "Dave C."
wrote: Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't like breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke, turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of thing. No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine BELOW redline. Who said anything about running it THAT far at the borderline? Sure if you're a masochist you can destroy anything, but it would have to either be a goal or be done quite recklessly, just like anything else. It is more similar to a german shipping over a Corvette for driving on the autobahn, then finding there is a governor restricting it to 80MPH, so they alter the artifical limiter to reach it's full potential. You are doing something with the car that it was not designed to do. And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is, exactly. -Dave Grand theory, but where are those stacks of dead CPUs? There MUST be stacks and stacks of 'em, because quite a few people o'c and have CPU that've ran that way for years. How many years should we wait to see if the CPU died? In a previous post I mentioned an example of Celeron 300 o'c to 450... those are about 8 years old now, do we need to get 10-20 years out of a Celeron 300? Possibly on a space station that would be important, but back on the mother planet that Celeron 300 is not going to die before the motherboard, power supply, video card, etc, to the extent that odds are very high the rest of the system will be dead before CPU died, so it was abandoned due to no platform to run it. Running a celeron @ 450 can't be argued as a significant cause of motherboard or power supply failure since it wasn't as much of power or heat problem as it's predecessors running at stock speed on same platform(s). |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:40:11 -0400, "Dave C." wrote: Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't like breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke, turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of thing. No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine BELOW redline. Who said anything about running it THAT far at the borderline? Sure if you're a masochist you can destroy anything, but it would have to either be a goal or be done quite recklessly, just like anything else. It is more similar to a german shipping over a Corvette for driving on the autobahn, then finding there is a governor restricting it to 80MPH, so they alter the artifical limiter to reach it's full potential. You are doing something with the car that it was not designed to do. And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is, exactly. -Dave Grand theory, but where are those stacks of dead CPUs? There MUST be stacks and stacks of 'em, because quite a few people o'c and have CPU that've ran that way for years. How many years should we wait to see if the CPU died? In a previous post I mentioned an example of Celeron 300 o'c to 450... those are about 8 years old now, do we need to get 10-20 years out of a Celeron 300? Possibly on a space station that would be important, but back on the mother planet that Celeron 300 is not going to die before the motherboard, power supply, video card, etc, to the extent that odds are very high the rest of the system will be dead before CPU died, so it was abandoned due to no platform to run it. Running a celeron @ 450 can't be argued as a significant cause of motherboard or power supply failure since it wasn't as much of power or heat problem as it's predecessors running at stock speed on same platform(s). Yes. My BP6, running dual 300As overclocked to 495, began life with NT4 server but is still going strong today as my 24/7 internet/LAN server running Win2000. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
in most benchmarks. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1 Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a 32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64 bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing. A processor is a processor... If a 64bit CPU can beat a 32bit CPU and cost the same as the 32bit then it's obviously better and the one to choose (as long as the rest of the platform doesn't drive up the price - final cost is the main issue) When comparing anything, it's price to performance that counts, regardless of technology. (Performance here also includes durability/quality as well). The biggest/fastest/etc isn't always the winner if a cheaper solution will still get the job done. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Also, why can't you compare gas mileage in the Civic gas to the Civic
hybrid, or any other comparable car? Ok, maybe that was a bad example, but why compare something that shouldn't be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit. Maybe it's like comparing a screwdriver to a cordless drill? Because they both do the same job. If the 64bit works better and costs the same, why would you get the 32bit? ....and have you ever had a cordless drill, dead battery and noplace to plug in? That 49 cent screwdriver is sure worth a lot more at that point! |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Dave C. wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... JK wrote: kony wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:18:12 -0400, JK wrote: Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system. Nonsense There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too. If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument against someone else driving a car. It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit. Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't like breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke, turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of thing. No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine BELOW redline. You are doing something with the car that it was not designed to do. And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is, exactly. -Dave Interesting theory. Let's follow it through: If I did that with a car, set the idle speed to red-line and only went above it, it would last, what, a half-day? At the most. (Don't try this at home folks!) Let's say for argument's sake that the car was built for a 10 year lifespan. It died in one 7,300th of that time. So you're saying that my Celeron 600's that have been running at 900 for four years, if they died tomorrow, would have lasted 29,200 years if I'd ran them at stock speed? I bet they'd be really useful in 29,200 years huh? If they were only running at 600 now I'd have binned them already as they wouldn't be fast enough for the task they are doing. Same with my XP1800+ (1.53Ghz stock) that is running at 2.1Ghz on a 200Mhz FSB. If it wasn't OC'ed I would have replaced it. Therefore overclocked CPU's last longer. :-) -- ~misfit~ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave C." wrote:
.... snip ... No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine BELOW redline. You are doing something with the car that it was not designed to do. And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is, exactly. -Dave It depends on your objectives. Mine is reliability and data integrity, with a loud and instantaneous complaint when any error occurs. For people who don't care about that, and really just want to play games, overclocking may be a fairly cheap way of improving performance. Meanwhile I recommend none of it, ECC, languages with strong typing and error detection, open-source programs, etc. -- Chuck F ) ) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. http://cbfalconer.home.att.net USE worldnet address! |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
BIG SNIP
Lol dude I just bought a P4 2.8E. I could have forked out the extra cash for the 3.2, the only difference? They are actually the same EXACT processor die. The only difference is that when they are manufactured at the factory, whatever part of the CPU that does the reporting to the board is different so it reports it to set as a 3.2. So OC'ing a 2.8e to a 3.2 is actually only setting the chip to what it was originally set to do in the first place! I don't have to up my core voltage, just my FSB settings. Funny how that works huh? Like my video card as well, an ATI X800 Pro ViVO Sapphire. It is actually the same chip that is in the X800XT, they just didn't connect the extra 4 pipelines. They are there, they just didn't connect them in the manufacturering process. So I get the card, pop off the Heatsink, using a conductive pen I connect the extra 4 pipelinesand suddenly, BAM I have gone from a X800 Pro to an X800XT. 12 pipelines to 16. Running at what the chip WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO DO! Most lower end hardware these days is just higher end hardware that has not had the "extra" stuff that makes it so, connected. So OC'ing my stuff actually on got it to run at what it was originally designed for. Funny how that works isn't it? -Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentium 4 vs. Athlon XP vs. Athlon 64's | MarkW | General | 2 | October 10th 06 12:11 PM |
For compiling programs: AMD Athlon or Pentium 4? | Chaos Master | General | 4 | May 17th 04 03:32 AM |
Which is better: AMD Athlon XP 1800+ or Intel Pentium 2 GHz? | Timberwolf | General | 5 | September 20th 03 07:20 PM |
Which is better: AMD Athlon XP 1800+ or Intel Pentium 2 GHz? | S.Heenan | General | 8 | August 8th 03 02:54 AM |
Pentium II CPU upgrading to Pentium III ??? | Hans Huber | General | 14 | July 18th 03 02:11 PM |